"There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."
And this is exactly my point. Why do we need to prove that God existed? Are the skeptics going to be convinced? Hardly. Why is it not enough to simply have faith that what the Bible says is true? Yes, it would be neat, but no our focus simply should not - must not be to prove anything. God has proven Himself, and all will see and have to admit that He is Lord. Proving He exists does nothing if the Holy Spirit has not quickened someone to believe. As for the believers, if we must see tangible evidence, can it really be called faith?
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:18)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
3 comments:
excellent point :) - proving God means that the next guy coming along can all of a sudden un-prove Him. or if this "proves", then is found to be bogus, does that un-prove?
I agree. But wouldn't it be cool to see?
heh, yes it would be cool to see, but I'm not getting my hopes up and should it turn out to be just another pile of rock and wood, my faith doesn't hinge on it. ;)
Post a Comment